Friday was the first time I'd noticed the term. A North American Union (NAU) to rival the European Union. Frankly, it sounds unbelieveable at first glance, at least to me. Sure, there could be, and probably are people out there who think it'd be a great idea, and who would like to go forward with it. People against the idea cite it as the line of thought buried under such things as the Trans-Texas Corridor (a large roadway project in, naturally, Texas), and the workings of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA; of which the stated goals are, from the Wiki article, 1) Cooperation and information sharing; 2) Improving productivity; 3) Reducing the costs of trade; and 4) Enhancing the joint stewardship of the environment, facilitating agricultural trade while creating a safer and more reliable food supply, and protecting people from disease.)
Now, frankly, that the T-T Corridor sounds like a road project to me, and the SPPNA sounds like a lot of government meddling wrapped around a core of security concerns that they probably should be working together closely on, given the current porousness of the borders, but I'm not seeing things here that read as "Let's actively merge the three countries and create an NAU." The fears of it, at the moment, seem a bit overblown. That's not saying that they can't be well-founded, but unfortunately, until the worry is timely, the chances are that it's going to be passed off as unfounded by the majority of people who'd rather not worry about a problem that doesn't exist.
To wit, recall the recent border or security issues and the way that the public has shaken out on them. Dubai Ports World, for example. Until it became a pressing, immediate issue, nothing was done or said, really. However, when the electorate realized it was an issue, they didn't let go of it until it was solved to their satisfaction. (Now, as individuals, some might not be actually satisfied with the outcome, but we're dealing on a larger scale at the moment.) Or, for another example, take the recent elections, with politicians practically falling over each other in their attempts to get to the right of their opponents on border security.
The fact is, the public at large doesn't seem ready or willing for such a radical change as the adoption of a North American Union. Equally, however, they are not far-sighted enough to see potential beginnings of such a thing and nip it in the bud. So, as I see it, if it's coming down the pike, we're not going to be trying to divert it until it'd require a great deal more effort... but it's an effort that'll be made.
(Note: I still want to do a lot more reading and study on this, so there will probably be further installations of posts on this NAU concept. One name I keep seeing come up, and really the only one that keeps being cited, is one Jerome Corsi. This one alone bears looking into, as in my initial readings, there has been almost sole reliance on his work on the matter.)
(Edit update: Pat, the Brainster, seems to be taking his licks at the issue over at his 'blog. Also, the man in question, Jerome Corsi, will be this afternoon's guest on Constitutional Public Radio, likely in the 4pm EST hour. I, for one, intend to be listening very closely.)